Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
The Globalization of Academic Entrepreneurship?
The Recent Growth (2009-2014) in University Patenting Decomposed
Loet Leydesdorff,*a Henry Etzkowitz,
b and Duncan Kushnir
c
Abstract
The contribution of academia to US patents has become increasingly global. Following a pause,
with a relatively flat rate, from 1998 to 2008, the long-term trend of university patenting rising as
a share of all patenting has resumed, driven by the internationalization of academic
entrepreneurship and the persistence of US university technology transfer. We disaggregate this
recent growth in university patenting at the US Patent and Trademark Organization (USPTO) in
terms of nations and patent classes. Foreign patenting in the US has almost doubled during the
period 2009-2014, mainly due to patenting by universities in Taiwan, Korea, China, and Japan.
These nations compete with the US in terms of patent portfolios, whereas most European
countries—with the exception of the UK—have more specific portfolios, mainly in the bio-
medical fields. In the case of China, Tsinghua University holds 63% of the university patents in
USPTO, followed by King Fahd University with 55.2% of the national portfolio.
Keywords: university patents, Bayh-Dole Act, nations, IPC, CPC, USPTO
a University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), PO Box 15793, 1001 NG
Amsterdam, The Netherlands; [email protected] ; *corresponding author b Department of Management, Birkbeck, University of London, London WC1E 7HX, UK; [email protected]
c Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden;
2
1. Introduction
University patenting originated in the U.S.A. from the need to protect public health and safety
and the university’s reputation by controlling the manufacture of drugs and food-related products
invented by its staff (e.g., insulin, milk purity analysis devices; Apple, 1989; Bliss, 1982). That
income could be generated from licensing patents to manufacturers was an ancillary consequence
realized by only a few professors and their universities. Some, like the University of Wisconsin,
soon made it a feature of their academic policy, providing a model for later legislation
(Etzkowitz, 2015).
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 changed the game for university patenting in the US by granting
ownership of inventions to universities (and other organizations conducting government-funded
research). Prior to the enactment of Bayh-Dole, the US government had accumulated 28,000
patents, but fewer than 5% of these patents were commercially licensed (US General Accounting
Office, 1998: 3, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay-Dole_Act ; cf. Berman, 2008; Etzkowitz &
Stevens, 1995). The share of patents in the US won by universities grew exponentially for more
than two decades (1976-2008). The Bayh-Dole Act was also imitated by other nations as a
potential means to bring university research closer to relevant markets (Callaert et al., 2013).
However, in the decade 1998-2008 university patenting entered a period of relative decline.
Leydesdorff & Meyer (2010) discussed this as “the end of the Bayh-Dole effect,” while
Etzkowitz (2013) warned that the academic analysis of university patenting can suffer from
excluding contexts and focusing exclusively on numbers of patents and rates of revenue.
3
A new growth trend in the share of university patenting is clearly visible since 2008. Which
factors are driving this new growth? In recent decades, patents have become more common as an
alternative publication outlet for university staff. One can consider university patenting also as a
sign of the entrepreneurial transformation of universities (Gibbons et al., 1994; Slaughter &
Rhoades, 2004); but numbers of patents have not yet been appreciated in major rankings of
universities such as the ARWU (Shanghai) or Leiden Rankings.1 Patenting is expensive,
2 so one
can assume that a university, academic scholars, or technology transfer officers must have strong
reasons to take the commercial risk of filing for a patent (e.g., Breschi et al., 2005; Göktepe-
Hulten & Mahagaonkar, 2010; Owen-Smith & Powell, 2001). The reasons for university
patenting may extend well beyond financial motives (Etzkowitz and Göktepe, 2015).
The economic effects of academic patents are difficult to specify, but recent efforts suggest a
“pebble cast on water effect” of ever-broadening impact on academic research, firm growth, and
tax revenues. TTOs often perform a variety of research and regional development functions that
may enhance the rate of future applications and also contribute to a penumbra of economic and
social development activities. Stevens et al. (2016: 139; 143), for example, provide indicative
data on firm growth and tax revenues, e.g., 50 billion dollars of the value of the Amgen firm
traceable to public sector research, generating 143 billion of private-sector wealth. These
authors estimate that five billion in tax impact has derived from 850 million of university royalty
income (Swiggart, 2003).
1 The Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU) for 2015 can be found at
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ ; the Leiden Rankings of top-universities of the Center for Science and
Technology Studies at http://www.leidenranking.com/ . 2 More recently, US law allows a preliminary application to be filed at little cost while commercial potential is
explored.
4
Nonetheless, most universities do not earn from patenting (Geuna & Nesta, 2006). A few
universities, like Stanford and NYU, have gained considerably from successful patents. Some
universities have lost money by entering this market; others have made huge profits, but
typically on a relatively small proportion in a portfolio in which other applications could not
succeed at commercialization (Breznitz & Etzkowitz, 2016). Recently (December 9, 2015),
Boston University (BU) won a court case about a patent for blue LEDs invented by Theodore
Moustakas (USPTO Patent nr. 5,686,738; Nov. 11, 1997). BU was awarded US$13 million for
the infringement of this patent by three Taiwan-based companies.
Patents remain indicators of invention, situated at the very beginning of a pipeline that is still far
from market introduction and innovation, let alone revenue and profit. The environment can be
considered as “hyper-selective” with the odds against newcomers to the market (e.g., Bruckner et
al., 1994; Dosi, 1982). A plethora of measures have been proposed and implemented—e.g.,
translational research funds at the university (MIT, Deshpande; UC San Diego, the Von Liebig
Centre), at the state level (California Stem Cell Initiative), and at the national level (NIH)—to
move the process forward along the innovation process through an “assisted linear model” of
innovation, including incubators, accelerators, and regional innovation eco-systems (Etzkowitz,
2006). However, universities often do not patent, especially in incremental engineering topics,
but leave the patenting to an industrial partner in compensation for other benefits or ongoing
research collaborations.
From an innovation-systems perspective, patenting, and university patenting in particular, can
perhaps be considered as early indicators of change. Furthermore, patents at USPTO have been
5
considered as more competitive for emerging markets than patents filed with other national or
regional patent offices (Criscuolo, 2004; Jaffe & Trajtenburg, 2002). Note that concepts such as
“national innovation systems” (Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1988) and “the knowledge-based
economy” (David & Foray, 1995) emerged much later in (e.g., OECD) policy documents than
the introduction of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 (Godin, 2006).
After “the end of the Bayh-Dole effect”
After a long period of exponential growth in university patenting in the US (1976-2008), the
decade 1998-2008 can be considered as a period of relative decline. Feldman and Clayton (2016)
attribute the downturn in 2008 to the global economic recession. However, the period of relative
decline antedates the recession, and the recession does not by itself explain the growth since
2008.
6
Figure 1: Long-term trends of the percentage share of USPTO patents granted to universities and
institutes of technology.
Figure 1 analyzes the three periods in terms of their best-fit lines: an exponential upswing until
the late 90s, a decline between 1998 and 2008, and resumed linear growth thereafter. Whereas
exponential growth in the first period may be indicative for an endogenous self-reinforcing
development—presumably triggered by the Bayh-Dole Act (Mowery et al., 2001; Sampat, 2006;
cf. Kenney & Patton, 2009)—linear growth is more likely the result of an external driver. What
may be the independent variables of this upward trend? Leydesdorff & Meyer (2013) suggested
that patenting by non-US universities at USPTO could be one of the sources of the upswing.
7
In order to answer this question in greater detail, we decompose the numbers for the latter period
in terms of nations and International Patent Classifications (IPC). International Patent
Classifications provide a fine-grained index system of patents worldwide that is now further
developed in collaboration between USPTO and the European Patent Organization (EPO) into
the system of Cooperative Patent Classifications (CPC).3 The system is elaborated to the level of
14 digits; but we use the 129 classes at the 3-digit level and the 670 classes at the 4-digit level—
that are similar between IPC and CPC—as (however imperfect) indicators of the substantive
dimension. In the geographical dimension, the analysis is pursued at the level of nations: which
nations are capturing a hold in these high-tech markets by means of university patenting, and in
terms of which technologies? Can the patterns inform us about competitive edges? The national
portfolios can be decomposed further in terms of lower-level geographical units or specific
universities, mutatis mutandis (Leydesdorff, Heimeriks, & Rotolo, 2015).
2. Data and Methods
USPTO patents are publicly available for download at
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm . We use online search data and therefore
whole-number counting. For the decomposition, USPTO data was additionally batch-
downloaded by one of us as a complete set for the period 1976-2014 from Google on October 2,
2015. This set contains 4,965,279 patents ranging from 70,194 patents granted in 1976 to
301,643 in 2014. The analysis is restricted to so-called “utility” or technical patents; design
patents and genetic sequences were excluded, and reissued patents are only counted once. This
3 IPC was replaced with the Cooperative Patent Classification by USPTO and the European Patent Organization
(EPO) on January 1, 2013. CPC contains new categories classified under “Y” that span different sections of the IPC
in order to indicate new technological developments (Scheu et al., 2006; Veefkind et al., 2012).
8
data set is therefore approximately 10% smaller than that obtained by searching online for a
given year, with design patents accounting for most of the difference.
The number of total patents exhibits linear growth during the entire period 1976-2008 (r2 > 0.90)
with an increase (β) of approximately 4,700 patents per year. After 2008, the growth accelerates
to more than 25,000 patents granted per year (r2 > 0.96). The increase of university patenting
during most of this period is thus part of a general trend, but was reinforced to an exponential
trend during the period 1975-1998. The linear trend in university patenting since 2008 is based
on an increase of approximately 1,000 patents/year (that is, an increase of 0.16% in the share of
USPTO total per year).
For reasons of clarity, we shall express all our findings below as percentages of yearly totals of
patents at USPTO and thus normalize for the growth in volume. We use granted patent dates
because using filing dates would make our results unreliable for the last few years. The search
string used in each consecutive year is ‘AN/University OR AN/”Institute of Technology” OR
AN/universite OR AN/universitat OR AN/ecole OR AN/universiteit’.4 The abbreviation “AN”
stands for “assignee name” in USPTO. The data for the period 2009-2014 is organized in terms
of the 62 nations holding university patents in the database, and both 129 IPC categories at the
three-digit level and 670 IPC-4 digit classes. Of these classes, 108 and 385, respectively, were
assigned to these patents. IPC classes can also be cross-tabled with the national addresses, so that
strength and growth can be indicated for each nation with the different granularities of IPC-3 and
4 The diacritical characters in “école” and “universität” cannot be included online. This search string can be further
extended with names in other languages such as “universidad” in Spanish. We return to this issue in the discussion
section.
9
IPC-4. As noted, nations can be decomposed into lower-level units like cities by using, for
example, the zip-codes in the address field.
3. Results
3.1. US versus non-US
Are the recent increases in university patenting due to foreign patenting in the U.S.A.? The
Japanese government, for example, heavily subsidizes and rewards patenting by university staff,
but in Japan university patenting has nevertheless stagnated at the national level (Nishimura,
2011). Furthermore, one would expect increases of Chinese patenting in the database in recent
years, due to the rapid expansion of the Chinese economy and academic entrepreneurship during
the period under study.
10
Figure 2: US versus non-US university patenting with USPTO. (Data is based on whole-number
counting.)
Figure 2 shows the numbers of patents granted to US and non-US universities as percentages of
the database. Whereas the numbers tend to stabilize for American universities at an aggregate of
almost 1.6%, the proportions of patents granted to non-US universities has doubled during these
five years (from 0.6% in 2009 to 1.2% in 2014). (Note that because of the whole-number
counting, co-assignments between US and non-US universities are counted as full points in both
segments.) As a percentage of the aggregate of patents with university addresses, the American
share has declined during these years from 70.1% to 57.5%, while in the overall database the
11
American share is more or less stable (approximately 45%). In sum, the growth is largely due to
foreign patenting.
Table 1: Countries with growth rates in university patenting larger than the USA; 2009 = 100.
Country Volume in 2014
given 2009 = 100 N of university
patents in 2014
Saudi Arabia 1,788 143
Norway 1,300 13
India 1,200 48
South Africa 850 17
Korea, Republic of 459 500
Denmark 457 32
Belgium 429 90
China 381 362
Japan 355 720
France 352 236
Taiwan, Province of China 350 888
Ireland 344 31
Israel 247 126
Switzerland 220 55
United Kingdom 218 181
The Netherlands 207 29
Canada 198 192
United States 191 5218
Table 1 lists the countries with growth rates in the number of patents granted to universities
greater than that of the USA during the period 2009-2014. Although the growth rate of Saudi
Arabia is spectacular, the numbers are relatively small, ranging from eight in 2009 to 143 in
2014. The large players and rapid growers, however, are the Asian countries: Taiwan, Korea,
Japan, and China. France, Israel, the UK, and Canada are medium-size players, and the other
European countries follow with modest contributions (N < 100). India, Norway, and South
Africa are rapid growers, but modestly sized. Note that Latin American countries are not on this
12
list. Brazil, for example, holds only 13 university patents granted in 2014; Mexico nine; and
Argentina only a single one.5
3.2. Patent classes
Figure 3 and Table 2 show the decomposition of the growth in terms of 4-digit patent classes
assigned to university patents (in USPTO) between 2009 and 2014.
Figure 3: Twenty three patent classes that contributed more than 1% to university patenting at
USPTO in 2014.
5 These results include the additional terms “universidade” or “universidad” in the online searches.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
2009 proportion 2014 proportion
13
Table 2: Top ten classifications at the 4-digit level of IPC used in university patenting 2014.
CPC-4 digits Definition (shortened) N
(2014)
Proportional change
2009-214
A61K preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes 1328 +16%
H01L
semiconductor devices; electric solid state devices not otherwise
provided for 583
+28%
G01N
investigating or analysing materials by determining their chemical or physical properties
490
-20%
G06F electric digital data processing 445 +20%
C12N micro-organisms or enzymes; compositions thereof 381 -12%
A61B diagnosis; surgery; identification 367 +57%
G06K
recognition of data; presentation of data; record carriers; handling record carriers 261 +47%
C12Q measuring or testing processes involving enzymes or micro-organisms 246 -37%
C07D heterocyclic compounds 223 +44%
A01N preservation of bodies of humans or animals or plants or parts thereof 215 +9%
The changes between 2009 and 2014 (in the right-most column of Table 2) are in tens of
percentages. Is this indicative of relatively rapid shifts of academic agendas at research fronts?
3.3. Which nations are increasing their presence in which IPC classes?
The two main dimensions of the set—the institutional one analyzed here in terms of nations and
the substantive one that we try to capture with IPC classes—can also be cross-tabled. This matrix
contains a wealth of information:
1. The distributions of IPC classes over nations in the data can be overlaid on Google maps
using, for example, the software made available at
http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/patentmaps/ (Leydesdorff & Bornmann, 2012;
Leydesdorff, Alkemade, Heimeriks, & Hoekstra, 2015).
14
2. The distributions of nations over IPC classes can be overlaid on the IPC-based maps
developed by Leydesdorff, Kushnir, & Rafols (2014), available at
http://www.leydesdorff.net/ipcmaps/ .
Figure 4 shows the network of 28 nations versus 69 IPC codes at the three-digit level that forms
the (k = 3) core group in the 2014 set.6,7
6 Eight nodes that are not connected, 44 connected with a single link, and 21 with two links were removed in order
to keep the figure readable. 7 We use the program NetDraw which is particularly suited for visualizing asymmetrical (two-mode) networks
(Borgatti, 2002). NetDraw is freely available at https://sites.google.com/site/netdrawsoftware/home.
15
Figure 4: Twenty eight countries and 69 IPC 3-digit categories form the (k = 3) core set of university patenting. (USPTO, 2014).
16
Figure 4 shows that universities in the Asian countries (Japan, China, Korea, and Taiwan) have a
pattern of patenting very similar to US universities, whereas European universities (with the
exception of Great Britain) share relations to specific patent categories with the U.S.A. The UK
assumes an in-between position. (As noted, the number of patents from Saudi Arabia [SA] with a
university address is very small.)
Table 3: Most frequently present IPC-4 category in national portfolios of university patenting.
Country Top category IPC 4-digits 2014
Saudi Arabia electric digital data processing G06F
Norway diagnosis; surgery; identification A61B
preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
India recognition of data; presentation of data; record carriers; handling record carriers G06K
South Africa preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
Belgium preservation of bodies of humans or animals or plants or parts thereof A01N
Korea, Republic of electric digital data processing G06F
China semiconductor devices; electric solid state devices not otherwise provided for H01L
Japan semiconductor devices; electric solid state devices not otherwise provided for H01L
Taiwan, Province of China semiconductor devices; electric solid state devices not otherwise provided for H01L
Ireland preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
France preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
Denmark
processes or means, e.g. batteries, for the direct conversion of chemical energy into electrical energy
H01M
Israel preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
Switzerland preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
United Kingdom preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
The Netherlands micro-organisms or enzymes; compositions thereof C12N
preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
Canada preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
United States preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes A61K
In Table 3, the IPC-4 classes with relatively the most patents are provided for the same countries
as listed in Table 2 above. Most western nations on this list focus on patenting in the bio-medical
arena; but Denmark is mainly patenting in energy conversion given its industrial focus on
alternative sources of energy. American universities share the focus on the bio-medical category
17
with other Western countries, but as noted above, the pattern of patenting at the national level is
more akin to that of the four leading Asian nations. The focus is here on electronic devices.
Table 4: Leading universities in national portfolios 2014.
Country Top-university N national share
Saudi Arabia King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 79 55.2%
Norway Universitetet i Oslo 5 35.7%
India Indian Institute of Technology Bombay 11 22.9%
South Africa University of Cape Town 5 29.4% Korea
Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, Yonsei University
24
4.8%
Denmark Technical University of Denmark 8 25.0%
Belgium Universiteit Gent 12 13.3%
China Tsinghua University 228 63.0%
Japan Kyoto University 37 5.1%
France Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris 6 7 3.0%
Taiwan National Tsing Hua University 113 12.7%
Ireland Dublin City University 8 25.8% Israel
Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
11
8.7%
Switzerland Ecole Polytechnique Féderale de Lausanne 18 32.7%
United Kingdom University of Birmingham 10 5.5%
The Netherlands Technische Universiteit Delft 9 20.9%
Canada University of British Columbia 29 15.1%
United States Regents of the University of California 448 8.6%
Table 4 shows the universities leading in these 18 countries in terms of numbers of patents. The
patent portfolios are highly skewed in the case of China, where 63% of the university patents are
held by Tsinghua University. The King Fahd University follows with 55.2%.
18
Conclusions and discussion
After a decade of relative stagnation (1998-2008), university patenting in USPTO has increased
linearly since 2009, rising from approximately 2% to 3% of all annual patents. We have
demonstrated that this growth is driven by foreign universities that maintain patent portfolios in
theUS The four major players are Taiwan, Korea, China, and Japan, but some smaller players
have also begun to patent at USPTO, for example, the King Fahd University in Saudi Arabia.
These patents of new entrants and fast growers are mostly concentrated in electronics, whereas a
group of moderately growing, mostly European countries patent mainly in the bio-medical
sectors.
Our retrievals underestimate the numbers of patents granted to universities a bit, but we do not
expect these trends to be different if one adds other possible variants to the search string. The
initial extension of the search string from only English words to other languages (French,
German, Dutch) did not change the trends significantly. Similarly, the use of online or the batch
results are slightly different, with most of the effect from including design patterns or not. But
also in this case, the trends expressed in percentages remained robustly the same.
In general, university patenting is just an indicator of output. On the input side, university
patenting is driven by contextual factors, including faculty mind-set, university entrepreneurial
culture or resistance against that model, research funding levels and other university income,
TTO capabilities (in finding licensees and/or encouraging start-ups), and general economic
conditions. Patenting is one element in a much broader regime of academic innovation and
19
entrepreneurship (Richards, 2009). As Mitra and Edmonson (2014: 472) formulate: “Patenting
represents one way on which universities have become cognizant of their role as exemplary
knowledge producers in terms of both public service and the commercialization of such
knowledge.”
Stevens et al. (2016) even argue that “the social act of transferring technology to industry far
outweighs the profit earned from such activities.” Such a broad socio-innovation framework
(“Better World”)11
is now being developed by the Association of University Technology
Managers (AUTM) alongside the survey metrics in the Statistics Access for Tech Transfer
(STATT) database.12
Since the economic expectations of academic entrepreneurship remain high
in policy discourses, the emerging propensity of non-US universities to patent in the US can be
expected to increase further as part of the broader transformation of universities to an
entrepreneurial mode in which they play a more significant role in economic and social
developments, both on their own initiative and incentivized by national, regional, and
multinational actors (OECD, 2012)
References
Apple, R. (1989). Patenting university research. Harry Steenbock and the Wisconsin Alumni
Research Foundation. ISIS, 80(303), 375.
Berman, E. P. (2008). Why did universities start patenting? Institution-building and the road to
the Bayh-Dole Act. Social studies of science, 38(6), 835-871.
Bliss, M. (1982). The Discovery of Insulin. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Borgatti, S. P. (2002). NetDraw Software for Network Visualization. Lexington, KY: Analytic
Technologies.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2005). From publishing to patenting: Do productive
scientists turn into academic inventors? Revue d'économie industrielle, 110(1), 75-102.
11
At http://www.betterworldproject.org/ . 12
At http://www.autm.net/resources-surveys/research-reports-databases/statt-database-%281%29/
20
Breznitz, S. M., & Etzkowitz, H. (Eds.). (2016). University Technology Transfer: The
Globalization of Academic Innovation. London, etc.: Routledge, Studies in Global
Competition.
Bruckner, E., Ebeling, W., Montaño, M. A. J., & Scharnhorst, A. (1994). Hyperselection and
Innovation Described by a Stochastic Model of Technological Evolution. In L.
Leydesdorff & P. Van den Besselaar (Eds.), Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory:
New Directions in Technology Studies (pp. 79-90). London: Pinter.
Callaert, J., Du Plessis, M., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2013). The impact of academic
technology: do modes of involvement matter? The Flemish case. Industry and
innovation, 20(5), 456-472.
Criscuolo, P. (2004). R&D Internationalisation and Knowledge Transfer. Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Maastricht, Maastricht: MERIT.
David, P., & Foray, D. (1995). Assessing and Expanding the Science and Technology
Knowledge Base. STI Review, 16, 13-68.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested
Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change. Research Policy,
11(3), 147-162.
Etzkowitz, H. (2006) The new visible hand: an assisted linear model of science and innovation
policy Science and Public Policy 33(5), 310-320.
Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Mistaking dawn for dusk: quantophrenia and the cult of numerology in
technology transfer analysis. Scientometrics, 97(3), 913-925.
Etzkowitz, H. (2015) The Evolution of Technology Transfer. In S. M. Breznitz & H. Etzkowitz
(Eds.), University Technology Transfer: The globalization of academic innovation (pp. 3-
22). London: Routledge
Etzkowitz, H. (2016) The Entrepreneurial University Vision: Launchpad of the Knowledge
Economy. Industry and Higher Education, in press.
Etzkowitz, H., & Stevens, A. J. (1995). Inching toward industrial policy: the university’s role in
government initiatives to assist small, innovative companies in the United States. Science
Studies, 8(2), 13-31.
Feldman, M., & Clayton, P. (2016). The American Experience in University Technology
Transfer. In S. M. Breznitz & H. Etzkowitz (Eds.), University Technology Transfer: The
globalization of academic innovation (pp. 37-65). London: Routledge.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London:
Pinter.
Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The
emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790-807.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The
new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary
societies. London: Sage.
Godin, B. (2006). The Knowledge-Based Economy: Conceptual Framework or Buzzword?
Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 17-30.
Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists:
in the expectation of money or reputation? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4),
401-423.
Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university
invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407-1422.
21
Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2012). Mapping (USPTO) Patent Data using Overlays to
Google Maps. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
63(7), 1442-1458.
Leydesdorff, L., Heimeriks, G., & Rotolo, D. (2015; Early view). Journal Portfolio Analysis for
Countries, Cities, and Organizations: Maps and Comparisons. Journal of the Association
for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23551
Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2010). The Decline of University Patenting and the End of the
Bayh-Dole Effect. Scientometrics, 83(2), 355-362.
Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2013). A Reply to Etzkowitz' Comments to Leydesdorff &
Martin (2010): Technology Transfer and the End of the Bayh-Dole Effect.
Scientometrics, 97(3), 927-934. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-0997-5
Leydesdorff, L., Alkemade, F., Heimeriks, G., & Hoekstra, R. (2015). Patents as instruments for
exploring innovation dynamics: geographic and technological perspectives on
“photovoltaic cells”. Scientometrics, 102(1), 629-651. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1447-8
Leydesdorff, L., Kushnir, D., & Rafols, I. (2014). Interactive Overlay Maps for US Patent
(USPTO) Data Based on International Patent Classifications (IPC). Scientometrics, 98(3),
1583-1599. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0923-2
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to
the national system of innovation. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg & L.
Soete (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory (pp. 349-369). London: Pinter.
Mitra, J., & Edmondson, J. (2015). From past to future: where next? In J. Mitra & J. Edmondson
(Eds.), Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Exchange (pp. 468-488). London: Routledge.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting
and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of
1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99-119.
Nishimura, Y. (2011). Recent trends of technology transfers and business-academia
collaborations in Japanese universities. Journal of Industry-Academia-Government
Collaboration, 7(1), 13-16.
OECD (2012) A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. Paris: OECD.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional
success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 99-114.
Richards, G. (2009). Spin-Outs: Creating Businesses from University Intellectual Property.
Hampshire: Harriman House Limited.
Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before
and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35(6), 772-789.
Scheu, M., Veefkind, V., Verbandt, Y., Galan, E. M., Absalom, R., & Förster, W. (2006).
Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach. World Patent Information, 28,
204-211.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets,
State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stevens, A. J., Jensen, J. J., Wyller, K., Kilgore, P. C., London, E., Chatterjee, S. K., &
Rohrbaugh, M. L. (2016). The Commercialization of New Drugs and Vaccines
Discovered in Public Sector Research. In S. M. Breznitz & H. Etzkowitz (Eds.),
University Technology Transfer: The Globalization of Academic Innovation (pp. 102-
146). London: Routledge.
22
Swiggart, W.(2003) The Bayh-Dole Act & the State of University Technology Transfer in 2003.
At www.swiggartagin.com/articles/Bayh_Dole_act.doc, retrieved on Nov. 29, 2015.
Veefkind, V., Hurtado-Albir, J., Angelucci, S., Karachalios, K., & Thumm, N. (2012). A new
EPO classification scheme for climate change mitigation technologies. World Patent
Information, 34(2), 106-111.
